1. 2017 Gohap 25 [Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud)] The Defendant was a person who actually runs a stock company B (hereinafter “B”), and on December 3, 2007, the Defendant, together with C, paid the principal with 1 bonds after one year, to the victim D, and received an investment of KRW 500 million from the victim D for the “Eiet Development Project”.

However, as the agreed one year has not yet passed after the agreed one year period, the defendant was urged to pay the above KRW 500 million from the injured party.

On February 2, 2010, the Defendant: (a) at the mutual infinite coffee shop located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, sought a loan from the victim because it is difficult for the victim to obtain additional funds for the Eriart development project; and (b) it is difficult for the victim to obtain the loan from ordinary windows. If the Defendant obtained a loan under the name of the victim, he/she would like to cover KRW 700 million plus dividends of KRW 200 million in the above investment amount and sell the rest of the loan to the victim.

The principle of loans shall be repaid within one year with the proceeds from sale.

“The purport was to the effect that “.....”

In full view of the Defendant’s partial statement, witness D, and G’s respective legal statement, the third-time protocol of interrogation of the Defendant’s prosecutor’s office (D parts), D’s statement, the second-time protocol of interrogation of the Defendant’s prosecutor’s office (D parts) against D, and the police statement on D, the Defendant partially different charges on the Defendant’s deception to the extent that it does not interfere with the Defendant’s right of defense.

However, in fact, the Defendant was in a situation where it was difficult for the Defendant to pay interest on loans worth KRW 5 billion from the damaged party from the time of receiving investment, and the Defendant received additional loans from financial institutions to cope with interest costs. From May 2008, the Defendant appropriated most of the interest costs by lending money from those who borrowed money from the branch from the branch in order to cover interest costs, and around February 2010, the cash owned by the Defendant is almost no longer available.